Posted by Damozel | Did you know that George W. Bush is still president? It's true. And yesterday, 'a second American aircraft carrier
steamed into the Persian Gulf on Tuesday as the Pentagon ordered
military commanders to develop new options for attacking Iran.' (CBS News)
One concern is the Iranians' participation in the Iraq war. '"What the Iranians are doing is killing American servicemen and -women inside Iraq," said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.' They are certainly smuggling weapons into Iraq. (CBS News) Current reports state that they are increasing aid to Iraqi militias.(CBS News) The military claims to have evidence of this:
Iran is ratcheting up its support for militias in Iraq, providing them with newly manufactured weapons and bringing them across the border to receive training from members of Tehran's elite Republican Guard, U.S. military officials said Friday.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the military is preparing to roll out evidence - such as date stamps on newly found weapons caches - that shows that recently made Iranian weapons are flowing into Iraq at a steadily increasing rate.
ullen would not detail the evidence - which is expected to be unveiled by military leaders in Iraq as early as next week. But another senior military official said it will include mortars, rockets, small arms, roadside bombs and armor-piercing explosives - known as explosively formed penetrators or EFPs - that troops have discovered in caches in recent months.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the evidence has not yet been made public, said that dates on some of the weapons were well after Tehran signaled late last year that it was scaling back aid to insurgents.
In addition, the evidence will include information gleaned from detainees who were reportedly trained by members of Iran's elite Quds Force, as well as insurgents who received instruction on how to do the actual training. (CBS News)
Another is their putative nuclear program. Do they have a nuclear weapons program or don't they?
New pictures of Iran's uranium enrichment plant show the country's defense minister in the background, as if deliberately mocking a recent finding by U.S. intelligence that Iran had ceased work on a nuclear weapon. (CBS News)
I don't have any trouble believing that they had, or have, or could decide to develop a nuclear weapons program. The Bush Administration, having flushed its own credibility in the toilet by lying about Iraq, has enabled exactly this outcome.
Furthermore, Iranian ships are apparently harassing US ones in the Persian Gulf. There was that incident back in January --- one which some in the media seemed to find suspicious, since any credibility the Bush Administration ever had is now in the toilet --- and then another the other day.
The Persian Gulf encounter involving the Navy is one of several similar episodes in recent months. Earlier this month, the USS Typhoon fired a flare at a small Iranian boat in the Gulf after it came within about 200 yards of the boat.
In January, several Iranian boats made what the Navy called provocative moves near a U.S. ship in the Strait of Hormuz. And in December the USS Whidbey Island fired warning shots at a small Iranian boat that officials said was rapidly approaching the ship.
Iranian officials have acknowledged several of the incidents, describing them as normal encounters and saying the boats did not threaten the U.S. vessels. (CBS News)
No, they were seemingly more along the lines of a Monty Pythonesque "I blow my nose in your general direction....Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries....Now GO AWAY or I shall taunt you a second time!" At any time, the US ships could have blown the boats out of the water and I suppose such an incident isn't far in the future.
All of this adds up to signs of a growing sense of impunity on the part of the Iranians, I suppose. "Knock it off, Iranians, or else" is the current message, though "[n]o attacks are imminent and the last thing the Pentagon wants is another war." (CBS News)
But Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, wants Iran to know what we---by which I mean 'they'--- could strike any time 'we' want to and that it may turn out soon that we---by which I mean 'the Bush Administration and those charged with implementing its objectives'--- do want to. We have what Mullen calls 'reserve capability' and we're willing to use it.
"I have reserve capability, in particular our Navy and our Air Force so it would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," Mullen said.
Targets would include everything from the plants where weapons are made to the headquarters of the organization known as the Quds Force which directs operations in Iraq. Later this week Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is expected to confront the Iranians with evidence of their meddling and demand a halt.
If that doesn't produce results, the State Department has begun drafting an ultimatum that would tell the Iranians to knock it off - or else.(CBS News)
Mullen is pretty clear that any extension of the war would be 'extremely stressful' for US forces. And he isn't even certain how much Tehran is actually involved in the meddling within Iraq.
The latest findings, said Mullen, still do not prove that the highest leadership in the Iranian government has approved the stepped-up aid to insurgents who are killing U.S. and Iraqi forces.
But he said it appears that the leaders of the Quds Force are aware of the activity. And with their strong ties to Tehran's leaders, Mullen said, it's difficult to believe that "there isn't knowledge there as well."
Still, Mullen added: "I have no smoking gun that could prove the highest (Iranian) leadership is involved in this."(CBS News)
I'm not sure what the Iranian leadership could do to stop the flow of aid to Iraq. But it looks as if the military thinks it could do something.
U.S. military leaders have escalated their rhetoric against Iran of late, noting that suggestions last year that Tehran may have been backing off its support for militants have turned out not to be valid. Instead, Mullen said there also is recent evidence that Iran is continuing to train insurgents for the fight in Iraq.
"I just don't see any evidence of them backing off. And Basra highlighted a lot of that," Mullen said of Iran.
He would not detail any potential U.S. military options, and he played down any impending action.
"We have to continue to increase pressure, and I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the immediate future," said Mullen. "But I am concerned over time, just in these last couple years, that tensions continue to rise. Iran does not respond and, in fact they seem to be ratcheting it up in terms of their support for terrorism."
He said Iran has made it clear it wants to be a regional power, and he believes Tehran would prefer to see a weak Iraq, so it could significantly influence what happens there. (CBS News)
By 'the immediate future' and 'no attacks are imminent,' Mullen appears to mean 'within the next 4 to 6 weeks' or maybe 'within the next 2-3 months.' But I hope people are paying more attention than they seem to be.
And just in case I haven't been clear, I don't find it any great stretch to believe in Iran's involvement in Iraq, in their intention to start a nuclear weapons program, and in their harassment of US ships. Why not? They know as well as anyone else that the Bush Administration has lost its credibility with the American people. What better time to engage in hostile actions?
On the other hand, it's not clear whether CBS believes what it is saying or what it's reporters are being told. Consider the title of today's article: 'Hostile' Iran Sparks US Attack Plan.
Asking whether these allegations are true is precisely the wrong question. The right question is what ought to be done about it in case it is. Is US military action the only option? And if it is, why is it? Since it looks as if the military is gearing up to strike Iran, those with the influence to prevent this, limit it, or delay it had better start asking before it's too late.
And if the military is looking at military options, those who believe in other means of applying pressure to a government that is looking to make trouble for everyone had best start looking at theirs.
At VetVoice, Brandon Friedman thinks that any attack on Iran would have to be "sustained, violent, and broad in scope. To suggest anything else is misleading." You don't have to be an expert in warfare to recognize that this is probably right. Common sense and careful observation at the way in which events are unfolding is enough.
It's just disturbing that we have no one with inside information whose intelligence (in both senses of the word) we can trust.
CBS has useful background materials if you haven't been following developments closely: "Iran Nuclear Chronicles."
Peacemaker Bush? The Iran Incident & the Impending Middle East Peace Talks
Odd Reporting on the US-Iran Incident
Senior Brass: Military Strike Against Iran Currently Unnecessary
Comments